Familiarity with international law – or one of its branches, international environmental law – is, in my experience, not part of the general knowledge of most people who read newspapers and watch the news on television. The press refl ects a world-view in which confl icts and superpowers control the harsh reality of international politics. If a country happens to be small, it is well advised to maintain good relations with the centres of power. During the Cold War, this kind of pragmatic attitude was essential. The battle for dominion between the superpower blocs of the United States and the Soviet Union and the race for nuclear armament prevailed to the extent that international rules were not the fi rst thing one thought of studying. The mainstream based its international relations philosophy on realist views of international politics where states and groups of states were the main actors, and their military-economic power defi ned their status on the world political map; there was hardly room for the rules of international law. This world-view is gradually becoming history. Today, the mainstream research in international relationships is based on many theories that acknowledge the role of rules in the behaviour of governments and other actors. This step forward in scientifi c research, however, has not yet been adopted by journalists who continue to transmit the ‘realist’ world-view to the general public in their reports and broadcasts. When the Russians planted their fl ag on the seabed in the Lomonosov Ridge below the North Pole in August 2007, scholars of international relations and geography all over the world gave interviews declaring that the intergovernmental power game on the Arctic natural resources had begun. As climate change is accelerating the melting of the Arctic sea ice, the rich and politically secure energy resources of this new ocean become increasingly accessible for exploitation.